19 July 2011 early edition/transcript/Part 1
Part 1 JAMES MURDOCH: Our understanding was that we would be afforded the opportunity to make an opening statement? We think that- and we prepared on that basis. And we would like the opportunity to make that statement. Would you allow us? JOHN WHITTINGDALE: The Committee discussed that earlier. We feel we do have a lot of questions and we hope that all that you would wish to say will come out during the course of questioning. If you feel that is not the case, then you can make a statement at the end. ASIDE Excuse me: could we not have that, please? JAMES: In that case, we would also like to submit this statement in writing, if it pleases you. WHITTINGDALE: That would be perfectly acceptable. JAMES: Thank you, Mister Chairman. WHITTINGDALE: Could we please remove the people holding up notices. OLBERMANN (INSET): So as we prepare for the testimony, already – no testimony yet, and there's already been a bone of contention as the Murdochs – James Murdoch as you heard, said he wanted to read an opening statement, was denied the permission to do so. They now seem to be cleaning out reporters and other noise-makers from the room. Keep the picture up; you don't need to see me, let's see what's going on there. That's the chairman of the Committee who we identified for you earlier. The conservative who was in Chair before, was told- WHITTINGDALE: Right. After that brief interruption, we will begin. OLBERMANN (INSET): Alright, he just said we're beginning. Here he is. WHITTINGDALE: Good afternoon, everybody. This is a special meeting of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. It is a follow-up to the inquiry which the Committee held in 2009 into press standards, privacy, and libel, during which we took evidence on the extent of phone hacking which had taken place in the News of the World. In our report last year, we stated that we thought it was inconceivable that only one reporter had been involved. In the last few weeks, it has emerged that not only evidence has come out which I think has vindicated the Committee's conclusion, but also abuses have been revealed which have angered and shocked the entire country. It's also clear that Parliament has been misled. We are very conscious on the Committee that there is an ongoing police investigation, and possible criminal proceedings to follow, and this committee would not wish to jeopardize that. However, we are encouraged by the statements that have been made by all the witnesses this afternoon, that they wish to cooperate with the Committee and help us to establish the truth. So, as our first witnesses this afternoon, can I welcome the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of NewsCorp Rupert Murdoch, and the Deputy Chief Operating Officer and Chairman and Chief Executive of NewsCorp International James Murdoch. Can I also thank you for making yourselves available to the Committee this afternoon. JAMES: Thank you, Mister Chairman. We are more than prepared to. WHITTINGDALE: Thank you. Perhaps I might start with Mister James Murdoch. You made a statement on the 7th of July in which you stated that the paper had made statements to Parliament without being in the full possession of the facts, and that was wrong. You essentially admitted that Parliament had been misled in what we had been told. Can you tell us to what extent were we misled, and when you became aware of that? JAMES: Mister Chairman, thank you very much, and first of all I would like to say as well just how sorry I am, and how sorry we are, to particularly the victims of illegal voicemail interceptions and to their families. It's a matter of great regret of mine, my father's, and everyone at News Corporation, and these are standards- these actions do not live up to the standards that our company aspires to everywhere around the world. And it is our determination to both put things right, make sure these things don't happen again, and to be the company that I know we have always aspired to be. As for my comments, Mister Chairman, or my statement, which I believe was around the closure of the News of the World newspaper… RUPERT: Before you get to that, I would just like to say one sentence. This is the most humble day of my life. WHITTINGDALE: Thank you. JAMES: The statement around the closure of the News of the World newspaper where I stated that the company had not been in full possession of the facts when certain statements were made to this Committee was referring to the emergence of new facts, largely that came about at the end of 2010 as the due process of a number of civil trials reached their point where document disclosure and evidence disclosure made it apparent to the company, and to myself at that time, that indeed there was reason to believe that potentially more people had been involved in the News of the World illegal voicemail interceptions from before. That was new evidence, or new information, at the time that post-dated the 2009 hearings, and that is what I was referring to. Subsequent to our discovery of that information in one of the civil trials at the end of 2010 – which I believe was the Sienna Miller case, civil trial around illegal voicemail interceptions – the company immediately went to look at additional records around the individual involved. The company alerted the police, who restarted on that basis the investigation that is now underway, and since then, the company has admitted liability to victims of illegal voicemail interceptions, has apologized unreservedly – which I repeat today to those victims – and the company also set up a compensations team, independently managed by a former high court judge, to be able to deal with legitimate claims coming from victims of those terrible incidents of voicemail interceptions. And those are the actions that were taken as soon as the new evidence emerged. So when I made the statement about not being in the full possession of the facts, it was that those facts at that point were still in the future, and it was in the due process of that civil trial, of the civil litigation process, that that evidence really emerged for us. And the company acted as swiftly, and as transparently, as possible. WHITTINGDALE: When this Committee took evidence in 2009, we heard from the managing editor of the News of the World, Stuart Kutner; the legal manager of News International, Tom Crone; the News of the World editor, Colin Myler; the former editor, Andy Coulson; and Les Hinton, former Chairman of News International. All of them told us that there had been a thorough investigation, no evidence had ever been found that anybody else was involved. That clearly was not correct. Were any of them lying to this Committee? JAMES: Mister Chairman, the company relied on three things for a period of time, up until the new evidence emerged. The company relied on a police investigation in 2007 – and this is before- I'll recount this to try to take us back to that area – this is before I was involved. I became involved in News Corporation and News International matters in the end of 2007. In the 2007 period, there was a police investigation, successful prosecutions were brought against two individuals, and the editor of the News of the World resigned. And the company relied on both the police having closed the investigation, and repeatedly assertions that there was no new evidence for them to reopen their investigation. The company relied on the PCC, which had had a report, and it said that there was nothing more to this at the time. And the company relied on the legal opinion of outside counsel that was brought in related to those matters who, with respect to their review, had issued a clear opinion that there was no additional illegality other than the two individuals involved before. And the company relied on those facts, and for the company in 2008 and 2009, it was not clear that there was a reason to believe that those matters were anything other than settled matters and in the past. WHITTINGDALE: So is it your testimony to this Committee that none of the individuals who gave us evidence in 2009 knew at that time what had been going on? JAMES: I do not have direct knowledge of what they knew and at what time, but I can tell you that the critical new facts, as I saw them and as the company saw them, really emerged in the production of documentary information or evidence in the civil trials at the end of 2010. The duration from 2007 to the end of 2010 and the length of time it took for that to come clear and for that real evidence to be there is a matter of deep frustration—mine. I have to tell you that I know and I sympathise with the frustration of this Committee. It is a matter of real regret that the facts could not emerge and could not be gotten to my understanding faster. WHITTINGDALE: You have made clear that it is the case that information we were given was incorrect. Have you established who, as well as Clive Goodman, was involved in phone hacking in the News of the World? JAMES: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, can you repeat that? WHITTINGDALE: Who, as well as Clive Goodman, was involved in phone hacking in the News of the World? JAMES: As I think you made clear earlier, Mr Chairman, there have been a number of arrests of former News of the World employees. These are matters for current criminal investigations and, understandably, it is difficult for me to comment in particular about some of those individuals. WHITTINGDALE: Have you carried out your own investigation since the discovery of this information to find out the extent of involvement in phone hacking in the News of the World? JAMES: We have established a group in the company, co-operating very closely with the police on their investigation. Their investigation is broad, with respect to journalistic practices, in particular journalistic practices at the News of the World, and the policy and direction that the company has given them is to co-operate fully and transparently with the police; to provide information and evidence that the company believes and they believe is relevant to those investigations, sometimes proactively, sometimes in response to those requests. Again, I think the very fact that the provision of the new information to the police in the first place when there was no police investigation ongoing that then led to, in part, the re-opening, or this new investigation being established can, I hope, be testament to some proactive action and transparency with respect to getting to the right place to find out the facts of what happened, understanding all the allegations that are coming in and moving forward to aid the police in successful completion of the important and serious work that they are doing. WHITTINGDALE: Was the departure from your company in the recent few days of Tom Crone, Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton because any of them had knowledge of phone hacking? JAMES: I have no knowledge and there is no evidence that I am aware of that Mrs Brooks or Mr Hinton, or any of those executives, had knowledge of that. Certainly Mrs Brooks' assertions to me of her knowledge of those things has been clear. Nonetheless, those resignations have been accepted, but there is no evidence today that I have seen or that I have any knowledge of that there was any impropriety by them.